StevenFulop wrote:
I would just like to give you an update on where things stand with this issue. I have been working with John Yurchak (Director of DPW), Captain McDonough (East District Police), and the Parking Authority. What we have come up with is this:

1. A stop sign will be placed on Erie at 3rd Street.
2. A stop sign will be placed on Erie at 7th Street.
3. The Parking Authority will be stepping up enforcement on parking at the curbs.
4. Crosswalks will be repainted.

Additionally, the blinking light on Erie at 10th Street might be switched to a standard traffic light in the near future.

The East District will also continue to keep an eye on speeding in the area.

This is a good start. The area will be monitored to see if this is effective or more is needed. This is very important as it relates to the changing needs of the area and its residents.

Sincerely,

Steven Fulop
Councilman Ward ?E?

StevenFulop wrote:
I would just like to give you an update on where things stand with this issue. I have been working with John Yurchak (Director of DPW), Captain McDonough (East District Police), and the Parking Authority. What we have come up with is this:

1. A stop sign will be placed on Erie at 3rd Street.
2. A stop sign will be placed on Erie at 7th Street.
3. The Parking Authority will be stepping up enforcement on parking at the curbs.
4. Crosswalks will be repainted.

Additionally, the blinking light on Erie at 10th Street might be switched to a standard traffic light in the near future.

The East District will also continue to keep an eye on speeding in the area.

This is a good start. The area will be monitored to see if this is effective or more is needed. This is very important as it relates to the changing needs of the area and its residents.

Sincerely,

Steven Fulop
Councilman Ward ?E?

StevenFulop wrote:

1. A stop sign will be placed on Erie at 3rd Street.
2. A stop sign will be placed on Erie at 7th Street.
3. The Parking Authority will be stepping up enforcement on parking at the curbs.
4. Crosswalks will be repainted.

Additionally, the blinking light on Erie at 10th Street might be switched to a standard traffic light in the near future.

The East District will also continue to keep an eye on speeding in the area.

This is a good start. The area will be monitored to see if this is effective or more is needed. This is very important as it relates to the changing needs of the area and its residents.

Sincerely,

Steven Fulop
Councilman Ward ?E?

scooter wrote:
Quote:

Exactly what was Traffic Engineering's "explanation" for taking a position, which sounds so "anti-safety"

The point of Fulop's OP was only to urge interested parties to attend the next council meeting and hear for themselves, as simple and transparent as that.

And if Fulop *were* to answer this request to paraphrase Public Works' opposing views re: Erie St., the haters (probably connected to the current administration - entirely coincidental) would immediately jump on him for spinning it towards his 'nefarious' ends, no matter what he actually wrote.

Don't bite, Steve - it's a trap..

from: thebes on March 28, 2008, 02:58:53 PM
Posted on: March 28, 2008, 02:58:53 PM

?Should these questions have been asked of the DPW director ahead of time, probably, but in reality there is not always time to be an expert on all fronts. So it is tabled and hopefully this ordinance will be passed or rejected based on its merits and how it best fits into the greater vision of the downtown area?.

?People are voicing concern about where this will otherwise push the traffic. They are also talking about getting ducks in a row a as it relates to what should be the main thorough fares?.

Personally, I couldn?t disagree with their opinion more

Exactly what was Traffic Engineering's "explanation" for taking a position, which sounds so "anti-safety"

ianmac47 wrote:

I was thinking of one alternative measure to stop signs however. A number of municipalities with heavy pedestrian traffic install rubber "Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs at crosswalks. This serves to remind drivers they must stop for pedestrians, and also slows them down. The signs could be installed off center in the road, leaving enough room for drivers to squeeze passed the sign, but making cautious drivers weary of speeding through the intersections.

I was thinking of one alternative measure to stop signs however. A number of municipalities with heavy pedestrian traffic install rubber "Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs at crosswalks. This serves to remind drivers they must stop for pedestrians, and also slows them down. The signs could be installed off center in the road, leaving enough room for drivers to squeeze passed the sign, but making cautious drivers weary of speeding through the intersections.

At the next City Council meeting the council will un-table an ordinance that I sponsored to put stop signs all along Erie Street in order to slow the cut through traffic headed the Holland Tunnel.

The ordinance was tabled last night as the police department and Director of Public Works have expressed that they don't feel slowing the traffic on Erie Street as a cut through is necessary. Personally, I couldn?t disagree with their opinion more and view Erie Street as just a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt. The traffic moves far too quickly on Erie and it was never intended for its current use as a cut through street for people headed to the Holland Tunnel.

If this issue is of interest to you on either side of the discussion, I would urge you to attend the council meeting in two weeks and speak on this ordinance.

Sincerely,
Steven Fulop
Councilman Ward ?E?

Posted on: 3/27 10:44

G_Elkind wrote:

The Councilman started this thread with a statement about dueling opinions -- his (slowing via stop signs on every corner ) and traffic engineering's (no slowing required), but we haven't been provided with traffic engineering's "explanation" for the position they are taking.

Who isn't for traffic safety?

Exactly what was Traffic Engineering's "explanation" for taking a position, which sounds so "anti-safety" as characterized by the Councilman? It's certainly not in character with the Joao d'Souza (Director of Traffic Engineering) I know to summarily dismiss a proposed traffic safety ordinance without providing a clear, well-reasoned explanation or without offering professional alternatives.

Knowing Traffic Engineering's side of the story would be a useful addition to this thread.

Posted on: 3/28 7:57
r_pinkowitz wrote:

Were other alternatives and suggestions given by the JCPD, Traffic engineering and/or Public works? It would be helpful to know both sides of this issue and why they raised objections.

ianmac47 wrote:

The traffic situation on Erie is fairly unique, and shunting cars off Erie wouldn't cause the same problems on the other Northbound roads because none of them possess the same qualities of Erie Street. Jersey and Marin are both significantly wider

SalOnTheHill wrote:

you sound like a clairvoyant genius!

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Right, because a problem that already exists couldn't possibly be exacerbated? Once something's categorized as a "problem" it's a wash?

Ian, I love when you think you're making so much sense. That's when I love you most.

Erie Street traffic is not going to use Monmouth Street instead of Erie. As usually, you have nothing compelling to say that would indicate otherwise, other than to belittle people.

Your condescension doesn't make you right, it just makes you sound like an asshole.

Right, because a problem that already exists couldn't possibly be exacerbated? Once something's categorized as a "problem" it's a wash?

Ian, I love when you think you're making so much sense. That's when I love you most.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

SalOnTheHill wrote:

As i said above:

"On days when I need to drive into the city, I take Baldwin to Newark, left on 7th under the TPKE, left on Monmouth, right on 10th, left on Erie, then to the tunnel. I am far from alone in this regard."

I don't see what this has to do with stop signs on Erie Street. There is already a flashing signal on 10th and Erie, and the problems of speeding cars at that intersection are mitigated by the traffic light on 9th and Erie. The real problem on Erie is speeding traffic between Bay and Fifth Street, and sometimes at Seventh Street. 9th and 6th have a light, and 8th already has a stop sign. So anyone coming down Newark Avenue and cutting down 7th Street already has traffic signals at 8th, 9th, and 10th Street. Anyone coming off Newark Avenue and cutting down 5th to Erie has a traffic signal at 6th, and the only intersection without some sort of signal is 7th. So the portion of roadway most altered by new stop signs would be everything south of 5th Street. For traffic coming east on Newark, that would mean traveling as far southeast as 3rd, 1st or Erie to simply get onto Erie. And then of course, there is the issue of traffic on Newark, and buses picking up and discharging passengers on Newark, and so I contend that very few people traveling east on Newark Avenue are getting onto Erie Street south of 5th; most of the traffic on the most dangerous portion of Erie is then not originating from Newark Avenue.

My original statement was in response to this:

Quote:

If you focus a solution solely on Erie Street to the exclusion of the other adjacent and nearby streets, you will quite literally, move the problem around.

I am contending that addressing Erie street's traffic issues will not "move the problem around" because traffic flowing from Erie can't easily get to Monmouth Street to use that as a substitute, and Jersey and Marin are both safer roads for the sort of volume on Erie. The fact that Monmouth also has a problem is irrelevant; it either already has a problem or it doesn't, and fixing Erie street will not aggravate or create a problem because Monmouth Street and Erie Street are not good substitutes for each other.

The anecdotal evidence that you have presented, that you and many others from up on top of the Palisade already, currently, at present drive down Monmouth suggests only that Monmouth already, presently, has a problem. Correcting Erie Street by sending cars elsewhere will not create or cause a new problem on Monmouth.

mr_bunny wrote:
[quote]
There are four "yield to pedestrian" signs installed at Monmouth and Pavonia, but drivers don't care because police don't enforce them. Yield signs do not work.

SalOnTheHill wrote:

As i said above:

"On days when I need to drive into the city, I take Baldwin to Newark, left on 7th under the TPKE, left on Monmouth, right on 10th, left on Erie, then to the tunnel. I am far from alone in this regard."

If you focus a solution solely on Erie Street to the exclusion of the other adjacent and nearby streets, you will quite literally, move the problem around.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

If you actually spent time observing Monmouth Street traffic during the morning and evening rush hours, reasonable people would conclude otherwise.

Monmouth may have its own problems, but the Monmouth does not connect to the same places as Erie does. Travelers on Erie will not simply move to Monmouth Street because it doesn't accomplish the same thing.

If you actually spent time observing Monmouth Street traffic during the morning and evening rush hours, reasonable people would conclude otherwise.

There are four "yield to pedestrian" signs installed at Monmouth and Pavonia, but drivers don't care because police don't enforce them. Yield signs do not work.

Downtown forecast: Traffic hell

Saturday, July 14, 2007

By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

A study commissioned by Jersey City has concluded that by the year 2020 traffic in the Downtown area will reach the full capacity of the current roadway system.

The $176,00 federally funded "Jersey City Regional Waterfront and Downtown Circulation Study," 11/2 years in the works, was undertaken in order to come up with solutions to the increasing crowding on city streets.

To deal with this impending gridlock, the study's consultant, Stantec, makes several recommendations, both large - extending the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail System along the Sixth Street Embankment through the Bergen Arches into Secaucus - and small - changing the timing of traffic signals to speed traffic flow.

"As the fastest-growing city in the state, it is imperative that we look at all options available in alleviating the tremendous congestion in the Downtown area," said Mayor Jerramiah Healy.

The price tag for all the recommendations comes to well over $300 million. The mayor and City Council will review the recommendations and set priorities, city officials said. City Planning Director Bob Cotter said funding for the projects is expected to come from the federal government.

The most controversial proposal is to extend Jersey Avenue from where it currently ends, just behind the Jersey City Medical Center, through Liberty State Park to Audrey Zapp Drive.

"Our main concern is a Jersey Avenue road would be a magnet for rush-hour commuters . diminish the peaceful experience for people who come to the park," said Sam Pesin, president of the Friends of Liberty State Park.

Naomi Hsu, a city planner, said she doubted the two-way, two-lane road with bicycle paths would become a rush-hour thoroughfare, since a light rail crossing of Jersey Avenue would naturally slow traffic and discourage commuters from using that route.

The study also recommends building a ramp across Montgomery Street, at the Christopher Columbus Drive exit of the Turnpike, as well as building an 11th Street viaduct exit from the Turnpike that would lead Downtown.

The full study can be found at www.downtownjcras.com

If you actually spent time observing Monmouth Street traffic during the morning and evening rush hours, reasonable people would conclude otherwise.

G_Elkind wrote:
Quote:

The traffic situation on Erie is fairly unique

Nice arm chair reply.

If you actually spent time observing Monmouth Street traffic during the morning and evening rush hours, reasonable people would conclude otherwise.

The traffic situation on Erie is fairly unique